I’m not a guitar player.
I don’t listen exclusively to ITM.
My ears tell me there’s a difference between ITM and ITMish (perhaps creeping into Irish sounding “New Age” or “elevator music”). I’m happy my ears are starting to tell me this. If they didn’t I’d never get out of “Old Time”.
Any hoot, I was wondering if what Philippe Varlet posted over there on “fiddle-L”, that quite a few of the fiddlers seemed to be in agreement with, was in keeping with the Trad guitarists here.
Not that I doubt anything Philippe would suggest, but I’m not a guitar player either.
I was also wondering if it might be something I would want to print up as a gift for couple clueless guitar player friends.
I hate to say it and be all negative, but if a backup player’s ways don’t fit and haven’t for a while, he or she is not at all likely to change. I’ve known exceptions, but very, very few (like maybe one. Maybe.). I suppose it wouldn’t hurt to try giving them the info, though. You never know.
The Old Geezer Godfather of ITM in our area gave me his stamp of approval the other night so I’m feeling qualified to call my self an ITM rhythm guitarist so here I go with my opinion, be that as it may.
If a guy plays “by ear” he obviously doesn’t have the attention span to read that glazed eye-inducing diatribe. I couldn’t get through it myself and I really tried. Of course my eyes glaze every time PV opens his mouth–Oh did I say that out loud!
The subtleties of the ITM aesthetic are hard to come by and people that come from other traditions and think “I back Finish Trad Dance music so this should be a breeze” or Old Time or Flamenco etc. end up annoying musicians for years. Those that really get it in the end are very familiar with another aspect of the Irish traditional culture specifically Piobh Mhor, which created the aesthetic and dancing, which perpetuated the aesthetic. There are others like the language and the song etc. – you get what I mean.
Using your ears and listening to other players and to the music every chance you get, and immersing yourself in other aspects of the culture, is the only path to backup enlightenment.
All I can say in the end is that many a session has gone underground or moved venues or broken up altogether because of an insensitive rhythm instrument.
Of course my eyes glaze every time PV opens his mouth–Oh did I say that out loud!
Um. You should know Philippe is a good friend of mine and of several other people on this forum.
Philippe’s discussion is spot on, but it’s probably too advanced for the type of guitarist who thinks s/he can just sit down and whang along without any understanding of the music, alas. I might print it up and give it to a clueless guitar player, but I’d also bend their ear about not playing on tunes they don’t know.
IMHO a session can handle a lousy melody player, but a lousy accompanist can wreck the whole operation. Such people need to be dealt with swiftly and firmly.
Helps? I see the gist straight off, but it’ll take me a couple of weeks to work through the substance - and I’ve been playing guitar for over 30 years.
Yer man Philippe SO knows what he’s talking about.
Personally I could live without guitar in ITM, but to each his own…
The only thing Varlet didn’t cover (and it was most well done, by the way) is rhythms, but that’s a whole other page, isn’t it.
Rhythms can ruin a pefectly good ITM tune, too, no matter how skilled the chording. Chording aside, nothing in attempted ITM backup drives me batty more than backbeat (polkas being the only exception, and that best done sparingly). A close second on reels is that rattly sort of “Pung pucketa-Pung pucketa-Pung” thing, or for jigs, “Pung ka-Pung ka-Pung”, both of which sound as if they arose from the dark, incontinent bowels of campfire singalongs.
I found that article quite easy reading although I cannot read western staff notation easily or with any desire. I think thats because I have a good mental understanding of interval relationships and chord formation. I find most of it agreable but I would never agree with a chord with a C note to accompany any diatonic mode relative to D/Bmin scale, not even occasionally. Also, I feel that chordal accompaniment that is more predisposed to arpeggio presentation is preferable in ITM and other melodic traditions that can accomodate homophonic support.
On a separate note, I think that the guitarship in flamenco music is an example of superb integration of a chordophonic instrument with the sensitivities of a modal (melodic) tradition. The ITM world could learn a lot from it - not in terms of copying the content but in understanding the elements at work.
Nothing in this post is to be construed, directly or impliedly, as an argument against what Nanohedron and Buddhu have said.
If I understand you correctly, all I can say -if I may be so bold- is that you haven’t yet heard me pull it off. But anyway, how would you account for D Mixolydian, then?
I don’t disagree there at all. I wouldn’t do it exclusively, but I do tend to lean towards it. As you say, I’m “predisposed”.
D mixo. is not a mode relative to D/Bm scale (key signature).
D mixo. is relative to G/Em scale (key signature).
So its OK to use C as a triadic note in D Mixo because C belongs in that diatonic grouping.
(A mixo is the mixo relative for D/Bm scale)
When it came to harmonics Pythagoras had taste even though he was working with just intonation and we are disadvantaged by ET.
Are you talking about using a C chord as a sub for Em in the E dorian mode? Yeah, that’s something you have to be careful of, but to shun it entirely is unnecessarily rigid. Unless you’ve got a C# note in an accented position (in which case you’d be playing something other than an Em chord anyway), it’s an effective substitution. For that matter, many tunes that seem to be in E dorian actually use the dorian pentatonic scale (E-F#-A-B-d-e) so the C isn’t even an issue.
Sorry, C only works if Em as in E aeolian mode. E dorian is killed by C.
E aeolian is relative mode in G/Em key signature, not D/Bm.
I have just double checked on my keyboard (reality check V theory check). C > Em can work vice versa in Aeolian Mode. If you are doing a Dorian melodic line C detracts from the particular modal flavour.
Unless you’ve got a C# note in an accented position (in which case you’d be playing something other than an Em chord anyway), it’s an effective substitution. For that matter, many tunes that seem to be in E dorian actually use the dorian pentatonic scale (E-F#-A-B-d-e) so the C isn’t even an issue.
C# of E dor is the weakest note because it is the 6th interval. Every diatonic scale has one note that is weak in as much as it cannot be the root of any chord. In the Dorian mOde it happens to be the 6th. To supplant the Dorian 6th with another 6th will destroy the particularity of the mode - its flavour. This isn’t dry theory. The theory reflects the experience.
In the tradition that informs my composition these "dorian pentatonic"s are called “sarang”. Yes I agree, C doesn’t belong in any E sarang just as it does not belong in any any E Dorian (E F# G A B C# D E+) either harmonicly or lineally.
To supplant the Dorian 6th with another 6th will destroy the particularity of the mode - its flavour. This isn’t dry theory. The theory reflects the experience.
Eh. I speak from experience, too. But until we can sit down with our instruments and do some playing together, this is all dry theorizing. Which is why I generally shy away from these discussions.
Talasiga, it is indeed dry theory until you sit down with your instrument and hash out the practical applications. You speak of modes relative to key signatures, and I’m sure you have a full grip on what you’re talking about. BUT: I imagine you are also aware that many’s the commendable and even superior player who has no ability and even less patience to converse in the terminologies and theory of modes. I can think of more than a few in my own acquaintance. Words, and more words. An ability to bandy about theory doesn’t make one a more -or less- legitimate musician for it. In the end, you just do what works and throw out what doesn’t, and if you can’t suss that sort of thing, maybe you oughtn’t be playing.
Myself, when it comes to ITM, key signatures are theory only. Period. Let’s go back to D Mixolydian. Its key signature is properly G. I don’t let that distract me from the reality and “needs” of the actual key of the tune. What key signature is Gm in? I don’t know. It doesn’t apply in the trenches. I have to determine that the player just switched to Gm and try to at least do the right thing accordingly. It’s all about the practicalities of the moment. I’m sure you have no disagreements there, but IMO it’s more helpful to speak in such terms for the general ITM public in that wise, too.
I think it’s very important to know the “right” ways to harmonize the various modes. However, I’d argue that once you’ve attained that level of understanding, you’re only past the beginner stage. At that point you’re ready to begin the careful and dedicated study of how to break the rules. This takes quite a bit more time to master.
Yep, and you can’t apply rule-breaking without knowing the tune. If you don’t know the tune, the best you can hope for is to rely on basics to get you by, so long as you’re listening. Knowing what the tune’s tonic, fourth and fifth are -for example- helps, but it isn’t enough in and of itself.
Of course, that’s just my opinion, but I’m not likely to be changing it.
This is a somewhat confusing retort. Yo say you are speaking from experience. You are arguing for a chord that contains C note for application in a Dorian mode containing notes E F# G A B C# D E+.
You say you speak from experience. But then you go on to say that it isn’t an issue because your experience is that it doesn’t happen,
You see what I mean? You may be experienced but your position arguing FOR the C is not based on your experience. It contradicts it. You appear to be arguing from a dry theory or dry anti-theory position.
In contrast, my position is wet theory because as I said I am speaking from my experience and your experience seems consonant with mine somewhat. You say it doesn’t happen because your experience of ITM E Dorian songs is that they are gapped modally and they drop the 7th interval. My experience is composition and performing in an indic or indic informed music and it is not appropriate to use C in a triad when the note in the scale is C#.
Darling, if C don’t fit because the 7th interval C# ain’t there, it ain’t gonna fit when the C# is there either. Unless you want some accidental effect. But the accident of C here is “dry theory” because I haven’t experienced it as something I like to hear when I play or when others play with me. See?
My position is that it’s just not a big deal. Probably to be clear I should have said that in an E dorian penatatonic scale there’s no C or C#, so you can play whichever the hell you want. Irish music has a little more flexibility vis a vis accompaniment than the indic tradition. I’d be perfectly fine with using C as a sub for Em in an E dorian tune, as long as there’s not a C# in the phrase. Of course it delutes the “dorianity” of the tune, but I’m more interested in making music that sounds good and interesting to me than in strictly adhering to the mode. De gustibus non est disputandum of course.
Hear, hear! A barely audible bit of finger picking is tolerable. Loud whanging away on chords----heck, what difference does it make what they are when you can’t hear the tune anyway----is just incomprehensible to me. Sorry, nothing personal and just my opinion.
But anyway, how would you account for D Mixolydian, then?